If you need to be "convinced"...you just don't get it.Raw = SeriousJpeg = Not SeriousEnd of discussion............

Then again we should not oversimplify matters. There are valid reasons to shoot JPEG sometimes, so it is not all bad. I would not qualify it generally as not being serious. I would like to rephrase this in the following way:RAW = Shooting slow or with the option of making the most of every shot you takeJPEG = Shooting lots of stuff you have to process fast and you don't want to pp on it.

If you need to be "convinced"...you just don't get it.Raw = SeriousJpeg = Not SeriousEnd of discussion............

Then again we should not oversimplify matters. There are valid reasons to shoot JPEG sometimes, so it is not all bad. I would not qualify it generally as not being serious. I would like to rephrase this in the following way:RAW = Shooting slow or with the option of making the most of every shot you takeJPEG = Shooting lots of stuff you have to process fast and you don't want to pp on it.

End of discussion: Not likely...

OK...I will agree:

Jpegs for junk photography.Raw for keepers.Still slices the same way that I stated above, no?

PackLight

This thread is silly.If you need to be "convinced"...you just don't get it.Raw = SeriousJpeg = Not SeriousEnd of discussion............

The progression is more like thisJPEG for someone starting out wanting to get seriousRAW+JPEG for someone who just started out that has gotten serious.RAW for someone who started not long ago and knows everything there is to know (by their own admission) and is serious.RAW or/ JPEG for someone with a little more skill who knows when each should be and can be used and uses the one most advantagous for their situation.

Becuase the discussion ended there are those that may be stuck at RAW only and never move foward in their photography.

And-Rew

Jpegs for junk photography.Raw for keepers.Still slices the same way that I stated above, no?

I'll bet all those journalistic, news togs and paps just love you.

To my knowledge they all/ mostly shoot in jpg because it's quicker and a more compact file size to send over to editors for the time conscious story. Such time sensitive material can not sit around waiting for the tog to get home and do a bit of processing - on top of which there is much issue with making sure images presented have not been manipulated and processed.

In truth, RAW and jpg both have their places in photography, and it's not about experience or kit being used.It's about preference of the tog, convenience for image management and suitably for the type of shot being captured.

I always shoot RAW now - but the X-Pro 1 captures images in RAW and one of its many flavours of film emulated jpg modes, which of course is what that camera is so liked for!

I suppose the guy at Sports Illustrated shooting JPG because the photos need to go to website live is shooting junk. You shoot in RAW for one set of circumstances and shoot in JPG for another and neither has to do with quality/junk photography. That is a gross misinterpretation of their uses. I've had to shoot JPG at sports before and of course I've shot RAW at sports before. To say one is better than the other in all situations is assanine.

Personally I shoot RAW because I like to have it. Yes I've shot sports before and racked up 500 RAW files. I simply picked the best 50-70 and deleted the rest. It wasn't that hard. And no I don't use RAW as a crutch, I use it because I can and it's available to me. It's called technology.

I suppose the guy at Sports Illustrated shooting JPG because the photos need to go to website live is shooting junk. You shoot in RAW for one set of circumstances and shoot in JPG for another and neither has to do with quality/junk photography. That is a gross misinterpretation of their uses. I've had to shoot JPG at sports before and of course I've shot RAW at sports before. To say one is better than the other in all situations is assanine.

Personally I shoot RAW because I like to have it. Yes I've shot sports before and racked up 500 RAW files. I simply picked the best 50-70 and deleted the rest. It wasn't that hard. And no I don't use RAW as a crutch, I use it because I can and it's available to me. It's called technology.

To My knowledge, Sport illustrated Photogs shoot RAW because they will crop the crap out of the pictures later.

To anyone else here to answer my question and not add wood to the fire, It didn't take me long to see the benefits of RAW. For some reason I thought shooting in RAW would add an extra step to my workflow. Using Lightroom, it doesn't, save for slightly longer processing times, which is more than worth it for the results I'm seeing.